A-Infos (en) anarkismo.net: It is the basic trade unionism ... - Greece by Iliadis Alexandros

We must finally overcome our insecurities and not be afraid to deal seriously and 
methodically with - what we say - petitions and some issues. We do not betray our 
political ideology in this way, let us be quiet about it. It is through the 
struggles for exactly these, the demands and the some issues, that one may 
(perhaps) manage, pressing on the shoulders of his immediate interests, to look 
at a wider horizon that will go far beyond them. . Anarchism, in the end, is 
about exploring ways in which this perspective will finally take on flesh and 
blood. ---- It is the basic trade unionism, comrades ??? ---- I will not repeat 
here what is known about the tragic situation of the working class, both because 
of the rapid and escalating attack it receives in the years of crisis from the 
bosses, and because of the sad incompetence to respond fundamentally to this 
attack. The most recent scene of this drama, which unfolds before our eyes in 
recent days with the anti-labor bill-monster of Hatzidakis, unfortunately comes 
to seal the most pessimistic assessments on the subject.

Taking the above as a given, I will go directly to what interests me here, that 
is, to the -in my opinion always- critical, serious inadequacy, which 
characterizes the role and presence of the anarchist / anti-authoritarian space 
in the efforts to organize the class resistors. The proposal to gradually 
alleviate this deficit has already been "revealed" in the title of the text. And 
while of course it is not recommended as a panacea, I do not see a way in which 
it will not be the most basic choice in case we want to deal seriously, and 
without fruitless ideological entanglements, with ways of intensifying the class 
struggle.

Admittedly, from December '08 onwards, a significant portion of the a / a space 
increasingly consistently included in its political agenda issues that go beyond 
the purely ideological sphere (traditionally limited to the repression and 
persecution of anarchists by the state but also in militant antifascism) touching 
on wider social issues. At the same time, it adopted forms of organization and 
intervention that were clearly less entrenched in political identity. All this in 
the wake of the unexpected realization that took place during the December 
uprising, that, as a culture of perception and struggle, it had a much greater 
influence in the social field than it had ever dared to imagine.

In the conditions of aggravation of the economic crisis, to the above came - 
fortunately! - to add the class analysis and the recognition of the central 
importance of the capital-labor opposition for the organization of all the power 
relations that are intertwined within the society. A perspective that until then, 
was treated phobically by almost the entire a / a space, mainly for historical 
reasons. Although the class analysis was present from the genuflections of the 
classical anarchist theory, the modern anarchist movement in Greece largely went 
from the reaction, both to the increasingly explicit capitulation of the local 
left to the bourgeois regime during the post-regime period, and to ossified 
physiognomy, a logical consequence of the drainage of racing juices caused by its 
bureaucratization. To the above was added the -very superficial- complete 
identification of Marxism and Stalinism, and all this together, resulted in 
anything that referred to trade unionism and "workers", to provoke an allergic 
reaction. However, as we have already said, this has gradually begun to change 
due to the new environment that shaped the outbreak of the global financial 
crisis and the debt crisis in Greece.

In traditional Marxist terms - but which we do not adopt - we would say that 
anarchist culture rather began to develop mainly in the realm of "superstructure" 
as a cultural subculture, and gradually maturing, its roots managed to deepen to 
the point of "base" (something that in itself is a serious indication of the 
genuine racing vein that animates it).

But it is at this point that the deficit mentioned above begins to become 
apparent. We find, probably without difficulty, that so far we have not been able 
to have a substantial presence in the workplace that would require both the time 
and the prioritization on our part of the class issue. While the issue of labor 
has been included in our political analysis in rhetorical and theoretical terms, 
it has not been raised at all satisfactorily in practical and militant terms. In 
short, our roots have not yet deepened enough to reach where the heart of the 
capitalist system beats: in the productive process, in our workplaces.

Activist interventions with corresponding goals, although useful and necessary, 
can in no case be considered sufficient. Certainly the effort to connect in the 
consciousness of the society of the a / a space with labor issues (persecution of 
trade unionists, labor "accidents", employers' arbitrariness, etc.) is of great 
importance and could only be evaluated as positive. But it is easy to understand 
that this course of action is not the easiest to assimilate by the majority of 
employees who want to react to their devaluation. And, in fact, even if this were 
to happen, in the end it would not even be an effective way of fighting, due to 
the -from the beginning- upgraded intensity and the total lack of institutional 
form (it could only concern very specific situations, when all other means of 
pressure would have failed, but first, they had been tested). Also, again we can 
safely say that, activism from the outside is not able to mobilize processes of 
collectivization within a workplace and seems to be mainly exhausted on a 
symbolic level, something not insignificant, but, at the same time, not 
sufficient (although reporting an issue can very often be important, rarely 
proves decisive).

In short, while we are obviously the flesh of the working class, and while we 
want to believe that we are the most advanced part of its struggle, it seems that 
we are so trapped within our political "organization" (or with the narrow , or 
with the expanded flag of the word) which, in the end, we have come to act and 
think - and therefore, obviously, to look like - standing outside the field in 
which the class struggle is really taking place. And this is a serious problem 
for us, both as anarchists and as workers.

It is rather easily seen that we suffer greatly from the inability to balance 
both momentum and organization, as well as between the political and social 
spheres. Let us say briefly that the first is the field of ideological formation 
(eg anarchist), while the second is the field of social relations which we 
intentionally or unintentionally reproduce (eg worker, student) three). Out of 
fear of being absorbed by the social field, thus losing our ideological 
characteristics, we are entrenched in our political identity, which thus ends up 
being the field of a "self-realization" that, very easily and quickly, can end up 
being self-referential and barren. And, in addition, fearing that there will be 
something that will limit this space of our "self-fulfillment",

Again, in my opinion, it is the lack of relationship and balance between impetus 
and organization on the one hand, and between the political and social field on 
the other, that leads to the pool of our militancy.

Unable to organize ourselves adequately in the political field, we are unable to 
cultivate and maintain our momentum, and we end up mainly invoking it or 
recalling it, as if it were some "natural phenomenon" with unknown and mysterious 
horizons. Unable to effectively organize the relationship and balance between the 
political and social spheres, we are often left to look at the social from the 
outside with a mixture of hope and snobbery, while in the rare moments of 
intensification of social struggles (or have we played a role in it the 
sharpening or not), we end up being allowed to be carried away by their "randomness".

Due to a lack of organization, usually neither the political space manages to 
capitalize on its promotional and supporting role in the development of social 
struggles so that it can form better conditions for the future, nor are 
structures and relations created in the social field to preserve and plow some 
part of competitiveness when the wave of any games recedes - and always recedes - 
in order to also form better conditions for the future.

Significantly, almost every time, we find ourselves starting from almost zero and 
almost every time, we find ourselves ending up almost again. As if we are living 
the day of the marmot one thing...

If we face an immediate challenge, it is probably our political organizational 
upgrade to enable us to strengthen our momentum and militancy, precisely because 
it will be fed back by the methodical contact between the political and social 
spheres. Allowing both fields to have their meeting and fusion points, with 
unpredictable obviously - and fortunately! - results mainly in race conditions, 
but also their points of distinction, where these results can be crystallized and 
evaluated. Without one field absorbing and canceling the other, without one 
boxing camouflaged and with an invisible agenda inside the other, but also not 
being distinguished by caesarean section.

The common places, the points of contact and fusion of these fields, will allow 
the social field to come into real, empirical contact with the anarchist / 
anti-authoritarian ideas and practices, but also the political, to be grounded in 
the reality of the needs of the social struggles, and see in the end, what to 
keep, what to leave and what to change from his theory and practice. Not to serve 
the social, nor to be served by it, but so that the politician can define a way 
that will allow him to reflect on the truth of its essence, which is nothing more 
than the creation of more and more capable conditions. within society, for the 
realization of the social - and not the political - revolution.

Returning to the initial deficit, I think it is a matter of vital importance that 
the militant proposal of creation and organization in grassroots unions but also 
in general in disorganized and direct democratic class and social groups (student 
groups, neighborhood assemblies, initiatives against nature destruction + LGBT) 
etc. to escape from the rhetorical sphere of slogans that is largely present 
until now, and more and more intensively to be grounded immediately, becoming an 
integral part of the culture of the anarchist / anti-authoritarian political space.

This now, in order to really make sense and not just become a blank form of 
content, must be done in terms that will allow the independence and the meeting 
of the two fields mentioned above. It will not make sense e.g. to form grassroots 
unions that will have VAT and articles of association, but otherwise will 
function essentially as a political affiliation group, and in order to be able to 
exist in them, they will have to share common political views (... or even a 
common style and aesthetics). Apart from some basic minimums, such as anti-racism 
and anti-sexism (which, among other things, are also conditions for class 
unification) as long as one wants to defend one's labor interests in terms of 
solidarity and horizontality,

As difficult and ungrateful as the work of an ant is on labor issues with our 
colleagues, with whom we may not meet anywhere politically, it must be done and 
in fact done correctly, done in an organized way, done methodically - as in vain 
and if it looks at first glance! Step by step, day by day. Let us digest the fact 
that there is no other way to cultivate and organize the class resistance, nor is 
it possible to cut a path and get directly to the struggles, the strikes, the 
conflicts. What to do! (Allow me a fairly personal comment on this point: I do 
not stick my tail out, in almost any of the above...).

Of course, creating a grassroots union is not always possible, especially in 
sectors where bureaucratic trade unionism has completely prevailed. There, 
obviously, the thing becomes more complicated than we described above and the 
formation of initiatives and frontal groups within the already existing unions 
could, depending of course on the circumstances, be a competitive choice. 
However, the possibility of an institutional form is of great importance and 
should not be underestimated by us due to ideological entanglements. It is an 
important advantage in our workplace intervention, because it gives us the legal 
possibility, from being able to defend a colleague in his / her labor claim 
against his / her boss, to calling for stops or strikes when we deem it 
appropriate. Also,

The institutional form, then, is not a fetish, nor is it obviously a guarantor of 
militancy. It is a base that gives us more favorable conditions for intervention 
and assertion, and precisely because the massification and intensification of the 
struggle is the purpose, if we reach the point where this form will now act as a 
deterrent, we must have the reflexes and maturity. to expand it, to transcend it 
or even to break it. But for this to really make sense, it must be the product 
and moment of a real moving class / social struggle. A real need and not an 
ideological imperative.

The model according to which we sit on the tops of political purity waiting for 
the social wave to inflate to meet us and surf on it, is not functional, if not 
for any other reason, at least, because it is not essentially competitive. The 
question is both how we will cultivate the ground for the next class / social 
struggles, and how we will function effectively and promotionally within them, 
when and if they break out. If we do not organize the relationship between class 
/ social and political pole, but also our substantial, methodical and stable 
intervention within the fields of class / social competition, the class / social 
struggle will not evolve either,

This, after all, seems to be the most feasible way, issues of key importance in 
the present - and not only - period such as the anti-war, the anti-sexist / 
anti-patriarchal, the anti-racist / anti-fascist etc. to be raised and embraced 
by larger sections of the social base, precisely as parts of the defense of its 
interests. But, no matter how useful and necessary the wider social forms are, if 
there is no competitive root in the productive process itself, in the workplace, 
in the basic point on which -unfortunately- our very survival depends and in the 
basic point on which the capitalist system is reproduced, no matter how much work 
we do in all other fields, no matter how much self-reduction we achieve, we will 
not be able to replace this deficit.

The whole grid of social relations that intertwines at the cultural level around 
the anarchist / anti-authoritarian space has always been a very basic and 
life-giving part of it. And it is very important that this "sociability" - 
permeated by values and relations of solidarity, horizontality, freedom against 
the domination of the commodity and power - be maintained and expanded as much as 
possible. But in order for this not to end up being just a bubble, an island of 
humanity in an inhuman environment, these social relations that develop in and 
around struggles, in turn, must re-enter the field of class / social competition. 
to sharpen it. Otherwise, as we said above, they will fatally stagnate and lose 
their vitality.

We must finally overcome our insecurities and not be afraid to deal seriously and 
methodically with - what we say - petitions and some issues. We do not betray our 
political ideology in this way, let us be quiet about it. It is through the 
struggles for exactly these, the demands and the some issues, that one may 
(perhaps) manage, pressing on the shoulders of his immediate interests, to look 
at a wider horizon that will go far beyond them. . Anarchism, in the end, is 
about exploring ways in which this perspective will finally take on flesh and blood.

If we are to lose anyway, at least let this happen because the proposal of 
organization and struggle of the social base that we bring, will become so 
dangerous for the state and capital, that it will eventually lead them to flatten 
us definitively. And not to lose, because we did not dare enough to do what we 
say ourselves.

At least that.

Iliadis Alexandros

May 2021

* Republished from here: https://www.alerta.gr/archives/18470
Related Link: https://www.alerta.gr

https://www.anarkismo.net/article/32330
_________________________________________
A - I N F O S  N E W S  S E R V I C E
By, For, and About Anarchists
Send news reports to A-infos-en mailing list
A-infos-en@ainfos.ca
Subscribe/Unsubscribe http://ainfos.ca/mailman/listinfo/a-infos-en
Archive: http://ainfos.ca/en